I'm a privacy pragmatist, writing about the intersection of law, technology, social media and our personal information. If you have story ideas or tips, e-mail me at khill@forbes.com. PGP key here.
These days, I'm a senior online editor at Forbes. I was previously an editor at Above the Law, a legal blog, relying on the legal knowledge gained from two years working for corporate law firm Covington & Burling -- a Cliff's Notes version of law school.
In the past, I've been found slaving away as an intern in midtown Manhattan at The Week Magazine, in Hong Kong at the International Herald Tribune, and in D.C. at the Washington Examiner. I also spent a few years traveling the world managing educational programs for international journalists for the National Press Foundation.
I have few illusions about privacy -- feel free to follow me on Twitter: kashhill, subscribe to me on Facebook, Circle me on Google+, or use Google Maps to figure out where the Forbes San Francisco bureau is, and come a-knockin'.

iPhone Users Sue AT&T For 'Aiding and Abetting' Smartphone Thieves

iPhone users hit AT&T with a class-action lawsuit, and it's not about dropped calls.

On Monday, the FCC, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile announced a stunningly-obvious plan to combat smartphone theft: the creation of a national database to keep track of stolen phones and to deny service on any network to a phone that’s been reported stolen by its original owner. The hope is that thieves will be discouraged from stealing if inappropriately-acquired smartphones are rendered dumb. (Details on how it would work here.)

A class action lawsuit filed in California on Tuesday, though, alleges that AT&T is liable for not doing this within its own network earlier. Hilary White, Jeff Pello and Natalie Warren have all had their iPhones stolen, and they think AT&T didn’t do enough to get them back.

AT&T has “[made] millions of dollars in improper profits, by forcing legitimate customers, such as these Plaintiffs, to buy new cell phones, and buy new cell phone plans, while the criminals who stole the phone are able to simply walk into AT&T stories and ‘re-activate’ the devices, using different, cheap, readily-available ‘SIM’ cards,” states their complaint (PDF via Courthouse News Service) which alleges violations of California consumer and business laws, including conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract, accessory to theft, and unfair trade.

The plaintiffs claim that AT&T has willfully aided and abetted the thieves because the company knows that the deprived owners will simply buy new devices. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this complaint. When I was reporting on software to track and shame electronics-stealing thieves, I spoke with a San Francisco police officer, Marc Hinch, who runs Stolen911, a database for stolen goods. He made the point that many stolen devices, from phones to your Sony Playstation, by virtue of being connected to networks are trackable by the companies that provide them. “There’s no corporate incentive to track them or to ensure they’re returned to their owners, though,” said Hinch. “Because that person is just going to buy a new device, resulting in more sales.”

Plaintiffs White and co. say that AT&T should have used their phones’ unique International Mobile Equipment Identity numbers to thwart the thieves who tried to reuse them. The complaint is short on technological details, likely because the lawyers who filed the complaint, R. Parker White and Steven McHugh, are personal injury lawyers. Which may raise some questions about the legitimacy of this suit, depending on how you feel about personal injury attorneys.

“Plaintiffs have been told by AT&T representatives that they will not, and ‘cannot,’ block and effectively kill usage of such stolen cell phones by thieves and criminal organization, however, such representations are false and fraudulent,” states the complaint. It’s unclear whether that statement is based on the FCC’s announcement Monday.

AT&T doesn’t think much of the lawsuit. “The suit itself is without merit, but criminals stealing smartphones is a serious issue, which is why earlier this week we joined with law enforcement, the FCC and other wireless carriers to announce additional steps to provide a comprehensive industry and government response to the problem of wireless device theft,” says a spokesperson for the company.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

So, if I kidnap my neighbor’s kid and then enroll the child IN THE VERY SAME SCHOOL the child is currently attending, the school has no responsibility to do something about it? I guess my neighbor could just have another kid . . .

You guys are short sighted; not all stolen phones are to be blamed on their users! If I’m on the train and a gang steals my phone, is it my fault for not jumping them and risking my life for my phone?

I think this case has legs, because phone companies can very easily keep track of all these phones, and if a central database existed, most phones wouldn’t get stolen anymore, because the moment you’d bring one to the store they would take it away and give back the proper owner. But we all know this isn’t in the company’s best interest…

This comment was so dumb that I created an account on Forbes just to reply. First off, If you are on a train or anywhere else and something bad happens to you that is called life. Sorry people get robbed, murdered, etc everyday. These things happen and its not the carrier’s fault that it does.

Secondly and more importantly, THEY ARE DOING IT NOW!! How can people say that carriers should have done sooner? A plan was brought up to them to help curb theft and they agreed to participate. End of Story.

If Ford developed technology for flying cars that run on water and can be much better for the environment, can we sue them for not making it sooner?

The point being made is to remove the incentives for crime. Bricking a stolen device greatly reduces the resale value and the incentives for stealing networked devices. Giving it back to the owner is a bonus, but making these devices less attractive for theft is going to reduce related thefts from the individual (purses, wallets) and violent attacks.

amazing how stupid some people are, so you get robbed or you lose your phone……… call your carrier turn of the phone. if stolen file a police report. so you have to buy a new phone, too bad that is life. it is not the carriers fault. if your car gets stolen do you call the dealer and demand they resolve the issue? No you have car insurance which covers theft. Some people are just too stupid to even own a phone.

Jeff unfortunately your post illustrates your first sentence in a way. Your failure to look past your own preconceived notions about this. The problem is that ATT has no incentive atm to brick stolen phones. On the contrary, if they did brick the phones then there would be MANY MANY less phone thieves as they phones would be worthless.

In addition your analogy is about as bad as one can get. Your car dealer does not charge you monthly to use your car. In addition if you have a loan you are required to have insurance, which you also need to drive, where as some phone companies will not insure the phones.

So if I understand you correctly, if your car got stolen and they bring it into the dealership the next week they should just fix the problem and send the thief on his merry way even though they recognise the car as yours and stolen? It would not hurt to think about what you post before you post it.

Actually, if I get a gun stuck in my face and my 800 dollar phone stolen by a bunch of thugs what exactly should I do when those very thugs walk into an ATT store and sign up for a new plan and ATT does nothing? ATT knows full well that the criminals who beat, rob and KILL people for their cell phones want to USE the cell phones at let them. If you compare it to the DMV if I shot your wife, took your car and then registered it to the DMV and they let me keep it simply because well, I had it now you would probably be a little pissed. ATT and Verizon know full well how much money they make when a phone is stolen. That number is ALOT. For example, I have to buy a new phone and case, so that is 800 dollars and the criminal who stole my phone has to pay for a new contract, which at between 70 and 100 dollars a month for 2 years could mean up to 2400 dollars in income for the company! So why should ATT get to profit off the fact that I get a gun stuck in my face for my phone that I worked hard for? No, if my phone is stolen ATT should brick it. Criminals should NOT get to benefit off my hard work. The reason criminals attack rob and kill people is because ATT doesn’t give two cares about the lives of their customers, as long as they get their money. Force ATT to brick the stolen phones and lives are saved.